"Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair'..." C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
*A note on the context of this book - Mere Christianity is based on 3 radio talks C.S. Lewis gave during the years in which World War II was taking place, and there are multiple allusions to the war and the Nazis as a frame of reference to the Law of Human nature, and how if no such law existed the actions of the 3rd Reich could not be considered to be evil, which as much as we look back on now with astonishment, imagine what it was like for those who found out about it while it was happening.*
In the very beginning of this book, Lewis discusses the difference between 2 different types of natural laws - physical laws, which compel obedience (the laws of physics, chemistry, etc) and the "law" of human nature - a common standard which can be, and frequently is, dismissed by individuals who would be expected to obey its commands. To this he attributes the human tendency to quarrel, pointing out that without a common standard people could certainly fight, but could not quarrel over fairness or rightness. This last part, the law of human nature, is what he bases the arguments he puts forth in this section of the book.
Lewis seeks at this point in this search, without looking at the Bible, or any form of religion or god just yet, to find some ground in human history for a common Right and Wrong, this law that, while may be adjusted off be some degrees in some societies, is still present in nearly all of known human history. He asks the reader to "Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him." He finds it as astounding as finding a civilization where math worked entirely differently, and I'm inclined to agree with him. There are certainly civilizations that have praised the cleverness of a man who double crossed someone who had done him harm, but few would argue that doing so to an honest person was the right thing to do.
He then brings up the fact that, while most of us expect or demand that others follow the Law of Nature, we each fail miserably at it ourselves. Even more so, when we do so, we more often than not find a reason to excuse ourselves of the shortcoming, but we do know that we have broken it. We may blame it on another person, or outside circumstances, but when someone does the same to us we tend as human beings to hold them to the standard that we just fell short of ourselves.
He proceeds to point out that in the case of inanimate objects, if we call them "bad", what we mean is that they are not the way we would have them, not that they have actually done something wrong. Whereas when we consider a person "bad" (think of someone like a Hitler perhaps), we certainly DO mean that they have done something very wrong - they have killed people, or have stolen money, or committed another act that has caused us to decide that they are bad, there is a standard of Right and Wrong, and they have definitely fallen into the category we would call Wrong.
What could cause this fairly uniform standard? What force in the universe could give us a moral compass, without forcibly compelling us to obey its decree of "do this, but not that"? There must be something, which at this point Lewis refers to as "Something Behind." Next week I want to take a look at what he thinks we can guess at, from how we know human nature works, about this "Something Behind."
<<This came out a little later than I'd hoped; Thursday snuck up on me after a particularly nasty week of allergies. Next week I'll make sure I get things written before Thursday, and schedule the post. >>
